Throughout the Bible, creation is declared to be an act of God and Christ, or God through Christ; and this Biblical explanation of how the universe came into existence is the only reasonable and intelligent explanation ever given.
For the benefit of persons who might have fallen into the foolish and hurtful superstition that this universe merely happened, through chance, or the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, a little further study of the problem of creation is in order. Is it scientific to view the universe as having been created by God?
The men whose views shall be offered here hold the highest academic degrees from some of the greatest universities on earth and are as qualified to speak on this subject as any who could be heard.
That some scientists are indeed atheists is of no consequence; so are some preachers.
The point to remember is that no atheistic scientist holds any higher degrees, has any more intelligence, or possesses any more information pertinent to the question, than do the men cited here.
Also, it should be remembered that one’s answer to questions of this kind does not depend upon intelligence alone, but upon spiritual wholeness also.
Frank Allen, Ph.D., Cornell University, Professor of biophysics, University of Manitoba, recipient of the Tory Gold Medal, Royal Society of Canada, commented on the ponderous protein molecule, the basic building block of all life, and noted that it has about 40,000 atoms arranged in an exceedingly complicated pattern. Regarding the possibility that even a single molecule, such as that, could have been produced by chance, he said:
The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require almost endless billions of years (10 to the power of 243). But proteins as chemicals are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only Infinite Mind, that is, God, could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed, and made it live.
Merritt Stanley Congdon, natural scientist and philosopher, holder of three doctorates from Webster and Burton Universities, and a member of several learned societies, stated that:
There are no facts yet wrested from the intriguing mysteries of this strange onrushing cosmos which can in any degree disprove the existence and intelligent activities of an unconditioned, personal God. On the contrary, when we as careful scientists analyze and synthesize the data of the natural world, we are observing only the phenomena of the operations of that unseen Being who cannot be found by mere scientific seeking, but who can and did manifest himself in human form. For science is indeed “watching God at work.”
John Cleveland Cothran, Ph.D., Cornell University, mathematician and scientist, Chairman of Mathematics and Science Division, Duluth, University of Minnesota, said:
Lord Kelvin, one of the world’s greatest physicists, has made the following significant statement: “If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God.” I must declare myself in full agreement with this statement …. Now the material realm, not being able to create itself and its governing laws, the act of creation must have been performed by some non-material agent …. That is to say, we unhesitatingly accept the fact of the existence of the supreme spiritual being, God, the Creator and Director of the universe.
Donald Henry Porter, Ph.D., University of Indiana, distinguished mathematician and physicist, declared that:
Whatever process of nature is considered, or whatever question of origins is studied, as a scientist, I derive satisfaction only by placing God in the leading role. God is the central figure in every picture. He alone is the answer to the unanswered questions.
Edward Luther Kessel, Ph.D., University of California, outstanding zoologist and entomologist, also editor of distinguished scientific publications, affirms that:
During recent years, scientific research has been yielding new evidence supporting the traditional philosophical proofs that there is a God. Not that this new evidence was necessary, for the old proofs were more than adequate to convince anyone whose mind was not encrusted in a capsule of prejudice.
W. O. Lundberg, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, physiologist and biochemist, noted writer in scientific fields, observed that:
The scientific method is founded on orderliness and predictability in natural phenomena. It is precisely this orderliness and predictability that constitute a revelation of God in nature. Order and predictability in the framework of non-existence of God is a meaningless contradiction.
Paul Clarence Abersold, Ph.D., University of California, member of National Research Council, specialist in nuclear physics, Manhattan Project, Atomic Energy Commission, an authority on neutron radiation and isotopes, wrote:
Although science can develop very plausible theories of a cataclysmic birth of the universe resulting in galaxies, stars, worlds, and atoms, it cannot explain where all this matter and energy came from and why the universe is so constituted and ordered. Straight thinking and clear reasoning demand the concept of God.
Marlin Brooks Kreider, Ph.D., University of Maryland, physiologist, member of American Society of Professional Biologists, said:
Both as an ordinary human being, and also as a man devoting his life to scientific study and research, I have no doubt at all about the existence of God. There definitely is a God…. I see at the beginning of the cosmic road, not eternal energy, or matter, not “inscrutable fate,” not a “fortuitous conflux of primordial elements,” not “The Great Unknown,” but the Lord God Almighty.
George Earl Davis, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, a specialist in solar radiation, and widely known physicist, denied the popular notion that atheism is more prevalent among scientists, noting that such a thesis has never been proved. He then added:
Such a popular belief is, in fact, contrary to impressions gained at first hand by many of the scientists themselves. These revelations in the natural world of transcending intelligence … are, for me, sufficient evidence of a God. They are sufficient even without the inference that no material thing can create itself.
John William Klotz, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh, noted specialist in genetics, began his answer to this question with two quotations from the Old Testament:
The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. This world of ours is so complex and intricate that it could hardly have risen by chance. It is filled with intricacies which require as their cause an Intelligent Being, not blind fate.
Irving William Knobloch, Ph.D., Iowa State College, Professor of Natural Science in Michigan State University, wrote:
I believe in God because mere chance could not account for the emergence of the first electrons or protons, or for the first atoms, or for the first amino acids, or for the first protoplasm, or for the first seed or for the first brain. I believe in God because His divine existence is the only logical explanation for things as they are.
There is no need to multiply scientific witnesses of the truth that there is nothing unscientific about accepting the Scriptural account of creation, which is indeed the ONLY account that makes any sense whatever.
In Monsma’s impressive anthology from which the above examples have been taken, there are thirty others just as bold and emphatic; and, in this writer’s library, there are at least a hundred more.
The conclusion of this study of the creation might be summed up by the Lord’s word: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalms 14:1).
With characteristic clarity and emphasis, the apostle stated the truth of John 1:3, first positively, and then negatively, to avoid any possible misunderstanding.